I totally agree. I fight the TSA everywhere I possibly can -- at the airport and elsewhere. Everybody should.

Bruce

That may be wishful thinking.

Resistance at the airport is not totally futile just because some may wish it to be futile or may wish alternatives to be sufficient to achieve the same ends.

Surrender is for surrender monkeys everywhere, airports included.

The art of war is to choose your battles very carefully, and not waste any effort on something that is utterly futile, without purpose, and without any influence.

Even futile war is with purpose and with influence. We've had a decade of conflict since 11 September 2001 with heavy US and UK involvement that goes to show that.

Even peaceful efforts at resistance that have been declared as a poor choice for battle and futile to the core have not always been as wished by the opponents of resistance or even by a proverbial Doubting Thomas. Futile is that resistance which never occurs.

While you make valid points, I think properly focused resistance at the airport can also be effective. By properly focused, I mean any sort of resistance that will make the individual TSA employee seriously question whether he or she wants to continue in the job. I have reached the point where I think the best approach may be to make employment at TSA so onerous that the agency is unable to fill the ranks and will thus collapse under its own weight.

I second that approach. One of the most effective measures to achieve that is forcing a large social disconnect between TSOs, their families, and the rest of society. Refuse to be friends with them. Refuse to serve them at your business. Refuse to let them in front of you in traffic. Refuse to help when needed. And at all times make sure they know the only reason you do so is because of their poor choice of careers and employer.

I agree with everything you say, except for the bolded part. Flying is a right.

Bolding mine: That should be written, discussed and celebrated everywhere throughout the country. It should replace every one of those "If you see something, say something" signs. Every TSO who joins the organization should sign a form indicating that they are aware of this statement.

It's been ten years and we've watched the Bill of Rights get beaten into the ground like a tent stake. But your statement remains the single most important point that every person reading this forum should remember. Scratch that: every citizen.

Mike

There's an -ism in there somewhere. First they burnt the books....

I respectfully disagree. The "-isms" are about hating people for who they are, and things they can't easily change about themselves (i.e. race, sexual orientation, core values and beliefs, etc). Employers can be changed rather simply and easily, even in today's economy (though I'll admit it's probably harder for the average TSO than it is for those with college educations and jobs that involve skills or specialized knowledge).

You very likely agree with me there too. Notice I didn't say that flying wasn't a right. I was trying to get somebody to look at something with with a different perspective. ;)

Flying is a right in the same way wearing a purple shirt is. The federal government doesn't have the right to arbitrarily take either away, nor can they conduct unreasonable searches or unreasonably limit our freedom of movement for either one.

Can you imagine anyone falling for this: We (da gubmint) stopped him (pick a minority), while he was trying to enter the mall, because he was wearing a purple shirt. We stripped searched him, rubbed his balls a little, found nothing, and sent him on his way. If he didn't like it, he didn't have to wear a purple shirt.

The "you don't have to fly" and "flying is not a right" drones keep droning on... clueless to the real issue. Substitute purple shirt for flying in most of these arguments and hopefully the lunacy becomes apparent. You can't enter the mall without submitting to a groping, you're wearing a purple shirt! DYWTShopT? :rolleyes:

My apologies for shamelessly stealing from RadioGirl. Thanks for the purple shirt. I'm thinking t-shirts and bumper stickers... @:-)

In the first case, you were unwilling, not unable.

In the second case, he was allowed to board the plane as soon as the TSA determined that he was deaf, with no consequences other than a brief delay.

Yes, I'm trying, but they are coming at me faster than I can answer them :o)

With regard to rights, I simply fail to see what rights are being violated here. The constitution does not cover this issue, and being asked your name does not hurt you in any way, cause you any trouble or any adverse impacts. The only convincing argument I have heard is that it isn't necessary for security, and therefore a waste of money. That is certainly true, but that doesn't make it a violation of your rights.

If you claim that you refuse to say your name out of a sincere concern for your personal rights and liberties, you aren't kidding anyone but yourself. You are refusing to say your name solely because you want to make life difficult for the TSA, and this is blatantly obvious to everyone so you might as well admit it. All the excuses you can come up with about rights and liberties and the constitution and so forth are simply your attempt to rationalize your behavior.

Is the saying of ones name a trivial matter? Probably.

Is the saying of ones name as a requirement for air travel also trivial? Maybe, but less clear.

Is the saying of ones name as a requirement of air travel, made necessary by a rule or regulation without force of law or proper regulatory authority with the necessary public discussion of the rule and its constitutional and legal basis a trivial matter? No, it is very important.

Our system, like it or not, relies on the consent of the governed. This consent is achieved by laws that are properly passed by our elected representatives and regulations that are approved only after considerable public comment and discussion. At least that is what is supposed to happen.

Our government is restrained by its constitution except for specific enumerated powers. It does not have the power to impose its will on people outside of those enumerated powers. When it does, it is proper to question and resist that authority that has been taken without permission or without the clear intent of law or legal regulation.

Congress has made no law, nor has any regulation been published, that requires ones name to be said as a requirement of travel within the states. When the government makes requirements or restrictions on the people outside the rule of law, it is never a trivial matter, no matter how trivial the particular requirement or restriction may seem.

For if our government actions are are not governed by the rule of law, and if they can make and institute rules without proper authorization, no matter how trivial, then any rule or restriction can be or implemented. The trivial nature of the requirement is not the issue. The legal authority to make the requirement is.

I respectfully disagree. I am only advocating a path of maximum legal resistance coupled with unconcealed hostility and disgust. Others here have advocated going further but nothing beyond what would, in an earlier time, be called shunning. There is no "-ism" in either of those activities.

Well, when you put it that way... ;)

Mike

^^^^